RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 3:07:50 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It seems very strange that, when itself previously detected, one ship can fire on five enemy ships with no return fire.

Perhaps they were busy shooting at their own ship such as happened to Atlanta during the 1st Naval Battle of Guadacanal.

So many factors involved in a night fight. Personally, I like the randomness of the whole thing. Makes the game exciting-and frustrating......

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 31

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 3:17:41 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Historically the Allies prefered to engage the IJN BBs with aircraft even in 1945. i.e. Yamato sortie was engaged by aircraft when American BBs where close to the beachead on Okinawa.

Btw in 1944-45 Vs the AI USA BBs engage with radar.

Which only makes sense. Why risk the lives of 2,000 sailors to possibly one 18 inch shell (Hood comes to mind) when you can accomplish the same with the loss of only a few airmen? The admirals of the surface force (for all combatants) were itching for any fight to prove that their precious BBs were not redundant and were often at times too willing to sacrifice the lives of sailors to make a point. Just too many cowboys out there.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 32

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:33:00 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It seems very strange that, when itself previously detected, one ship can fire on five enemy ships with no return fire.

Perhaps they were busy shooting at their own ship such as happened to Atlanta during the 1st Naval Battle of Guadacanal. So many factors involved in a night fight. Personally, I like the randomness of the whole thing. Makes the game exciting-and frustrating......

I love the randomness. Given the number of consistent anecdotes I'm wondering if this is more than just randomness but rather some deficiency in the code.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 33

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:33:28 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

IIRC in the battle of phlippine sea a surface engagment was evaded because Adm Lee did not think his forces would win in a night engagment.

I never heard that. Could you elaborate a bit?

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 34

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:43:04 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

I forgot where i read it but i think it was in a book by eric hammel. Basically mitscher asks lee after the japanese strike about engaging the japanese fleet in a night action and lee recomended not to. Will check out my sources as i am not 100% about when the episode happened.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 35

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:44:51 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Shortly before midnight on June 18, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz sent Spruance a message from Pacific Fleet Headquarters indicating that the Japanese flagship was approximately 350 miles (562 km) to the west-southwest of Task Force 58. This was stated as based on a "fix" obtained by radio direction-finding, but was more probably due to decryption of intercepted Japanese naval messages. Mitscher realized that if Task Force 58 were to advance westward, there was a strong chance of a night surface encounter with Ozawa's forces. He therefore conferred with Lee, commander of the Fifth Fleet Battle Line, and inquired whether Lee favored such an encounter. The battleship commander wasn't enthusiastic about a night engagement with Japanese surface forces, despite his new ships outclassing most of the Japanese battleships, feeling that his crews weren't adequately trained for such an action. Shortly after his discussion with Lee, Mitscher asked Spruance for permission to head west during the night to reach what would be an ideal launch position for an all-out aerial assault on the enemy force at dawn.

Found it in on Wiki but i read it in Hammels book.

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 36

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:57:21 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Shortly before midnight on June 18, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz sent Spruance a message from Pacific Fleet Headquarters indicating that the Japanese flagship was approximately 350 miles (562�km) to the west-southwest of Task Force 58. This was stated as based on a "fix" obtained by radio direction-finding, but was more probably due to decryption of intercepted Japanese naval messages. Mitscher realized that if Task Force 58 were to advance westward, there was a strong chance of a night surface encounter with Ozawa's forces. He therefore conferred with Lee, commander of the Fifth Fleet Battle Line, and inquired whether Lee favored such an encounter. The battleship commander wasn't enthusiastic about a night engagement with Japanese surface forces, despite his new ships outclassing most of the Japanese battleships, feeling that his crews weren't adequately trained for such an action. Shortly after his discussion with Lee, Mitscher asked Spruance for permission to head west during the night to reach what would be an ideal launch position for an all-out aerial assault on the enemy force at dawn.

Found it in on Wiki but i read it in Hammels book.

Thanks - interesting.

It makes sense with the new USN BB's being so much newer than the IJN BB's. Some had been around longer, but still it was the right choice. Risk-reward. To put those ships and all those sailors at risk the chances of success with minimal damage should be way in your favor, and there were still those excellent IJN torpedoes that could change an open sea night engagement in a hurry. Hit 'em with planes!

In a day engagement they could stand off and be in much better control with superior long range gunnery. Even then, it's already daylight - hit 'em with planes!

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 37

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 5:23:30 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Agreed Best decision taken but the inner grognard in me would have loved for it to happen.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/10/2010 12:34:30 AM

mgoldstein

Posts: 33
Joined: 10/27/2009
Status: offline

The Japanese Navy can be bested in night surface battles, but you need to gain experience first. I used my surface ships extensively in the early days of the Japanese offensive in nighttime commerce raids and shore bombardments. Sometimes, however, it's better to be lucky than good.

Battle of Port Moresby

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 39